Re: pg_primary_conninfo

From: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
To: Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_primary_conninfo
Date: 2010-12-28 17:02:01
Message-ID: 4D1A1809.2050408@lelarge.info
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Le 28/12/2010 17:50, Gurjeet Singh a écrit :
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>>
>> I can see the point of, say, a primary_host_address() function returning
>> inet, which would be way better on both those dimensions than the
>> current proposal. But I'm not sure what else would be needed.
>>
>>
> +1, since it bypasses security risks associated with exposing
> username/password.
>
> Ability to see port number will be a useful addition.
>
> Another case to consider is what if slave is connected to a local server
> over unix-domain sockets? Returning NULL might make it ambiguous with the
> case where the instance has been promoted out of standby.
>

The host should be the socket file path.

--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Aidan Van Dyk 2010-12-28 17:10:37 Re: pg_dump --split patch
Previous Message Joel Jacobson 2010-12-28 16:59:31 Re: pg_dump --split patch